Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
but they do eventually reappear in an 'attackable' hex? not just their destination? and if this is the case - is there any reason why i just wouldnt plant a load of subs of a SCTF at the 'reappear' hex?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
TFs do appear at the map edge. If the Allied player does not vary their routing then TFs moving from, say, Cape Town to Perth would indeed enter the map at a fairly predictable location, but sensible Allied players would vary the routing to avoid this (and/or maybe send ASW TFs to that area?).

Andrew

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
The Allies can always add escorts to their off map convoys, or have the off map convoys hook up with escorts when they get to the base on the map edge. That would be wise to do anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
i would hope it doesnt magically appear - im not usually in agreement with pad152 - but if you can theres no point in isolating Oz, or indeed shutting down the eastern supply route to it surely?

That's right. no "magic" appearence at the destination base. So in the example being discussed the Alled TF moving to Perth would appear on the left map edge, and is able to be detected and attacked while moving from there to Perth.

Andrew

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Boy, no matter how much effort someone puts into a game to simulate WW2 conditions there will always be one person whining because it hurts their gameplay strategy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Someone also asked about sending British troops to the Aleutians. If you really want to, you can, but it's going to be a heck of a long voyage, more than 3/4 of the way around the world. The only reason I can think of why anyone would want to do it would be as an experiment. In a real game it's so impractical it would be pretty boneheaded to do. I would never do it. It would weaken my already weak forces in the Far East and those units would be unavailable for more than a month.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well, if IJN can spare 3-4 CAs to interdict convoys to Perth....they'd be long way from home. Realistic home bases for them being Singapore/Soerabaja/Batavia. I'd hate to have heavy combat and be that far from base, even if it netted a convoy. It could easily mean loss of 1-2 CAs if things turn bad. Like finding out that you just tried to intercept CV TF...or that convoy had couple of cruisers in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Some of us feel those "off map" places were mandatory for historic reasons.
At least 2 American divisions staged from Panama and never set foot anywhere near the west coast of CONUS.

If Panama can't be attacked by the Japanese it has no effect on the game, you might as well place troops on the moon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later.

In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Someone also asked about sending British troops to the Aleutians. If you really want to, you can, but it's going to be a heck of a long voyage, more than 3/4 of the way around the world. The only reason I can think of why anyone would want to do it would be as an experiment. In a real game it's so impractical it would be pretty boneheaded to do. I would never do it. It would weaken my already weak forces in the Far East and those units would be unavailable for more than a month.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude
Bill,
the question was not if I could do it as a player (I knew I could), but it was rather an example if the AI can and will use off-map areas to ship units "around the globe". Or if it sticks to the historical scenario.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Some of us feel those "off map" places were mandatory for historic reasons.
At least 2 American divisions staged from Panama and never set foot anywhere near the west coast of CONUS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
If Panama can't be attacked by the Japanese it has no effect on the game, you might as well place troops on the moon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
There was actually a plan late in the war to hit the canal by submarines laden with aircraft. I don't recall the details, but some of the submarines had difficulties of another sort shortly before that and it was called off.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door.

Well, you know, the world really is round, despite what the Japanese high command might wish.

I don't see much of a problem here though? I presume it would take a LONG time to sail from San Francisco eastwards to Perth, much longer than it would take to sail to Brisbane.

...and IJ could always just take or interdict Perth to be sure?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Some of us feel those "off map" places were mandatory for historic reasons.
At least 2 American divisions staged from Panama and never set foot anywhere near the west coast of CONUS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
If Panama can't be attacked by the Japanese it has no effect on the game, you might as well place troops on the moon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
There was actually a plan late in the war to hit the canal by submarines laden with aircraft. I don't recall the details, but some of the submarines had difficulties of another sort shortly before that and it was called off.

The I-400 class could carry 3 Serian float plane/bombers. Three subs were built.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/i-400.html

The plans to attack the Panama Canal were really a pipe dream. The subs could only put a grand total of nine bombers carrying one bomb each over the canal. The US had fighter units permanently based at the canal and would likely have scrambled fighters if unusual blips showed up on the radar. If they got lucky, some may have been able to drop their bombs, but the plan was to take out the gates on the locks. The British discovered when they attacked the dams in the Ruhr Valley that bombing something like that wouldn't be easy. The pressure wave from a near miss might have done some damage to the locks, but only a direct hit would take them out.

It's highly unlikely the Japanese would have achieved any success and they may have lost all three subs. The I-400s were the largest subs built until the nuclear subs were built. They would have been relatively easy to find and would have been very vulnerable on the surface while getting the planes ready for launch. The planes were carried with the wings detached and required time to mount the wings.

The US had radar equipped ASW aircraft based at the canal that would have been patrolling. The subs would have shown up like a CL on radar and almost certainly would have been investigated. If the US planes attacked, the subs would have had a tough time doing a crash dive with planes on deck and the water tight hanger door open. Even if the US planes were slow to attack, the Japanese most likely would have gotten spooked and jettisoned the planes to submerge. Either way, the mission would have been a failure.

Another factor would have been the poor quality of Japanese pilots at that point in the war. How accurate could their bombing be?

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later.

In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time?

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Oh it is fair in this design Pad152, but I get your point and would like to expand it somewhat.

The real issue for me is that there is no real incentive for the Allies to defend anything in the South Pacific. If there is a next iteration of WITP ala II, then not only should VP's be used but maybe PP's that are now accumulated at a fixed rate should be formulated by national morale or some such indicator ensuring that some bases have to be defended. I think it unacceptable that the Japanese can rampage around the map as much as the Allies can hole up and do nothing, when Noumea, New Zealand etc are invaded basically cause they don't need to.

I haven't thought too much about how it could be totally fixed, but I guess in the end you need to pick an opponent who will come out and play beyond the scope of hindsight regarding what they'll have in '44 and where the war will ultimately go.

I posted some of my thoughts here on my AAR about this:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1900084

As to the original posting about troops arriving a week later, well I'd guess that the arrival date has been adjusted to reflect the transportation from Europe or the East Coast anyway.

--Damian-- (I'm not an accountant - in regard to the last time I debated you)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around?

This is a good question, I would say no for two reasons.

1. There were no bases/refueling stops in south Africa on the way to India/Australia, North Africa may have to have been taken first so southern bases could be securely built there to protect the shipping lanes. The US lost alot of shipping off the east coast of the US, the Atlantic was not a very save place for shipping in 1942.

2. US policy was suppose to be Europe first, yet by early 1943 we had more man/ships in the pacific than we had in Europe, our allies didn't like it, and I not sure we would have gotten away with it if we had to ship everything through the Atlantic. Even congress and senate where not fully aware of the build up in the pacific vs. Europe. There was still a real fear back then, Japan could invade the west coast of the US, which would have kept what was left of the pacific fleet on the west coast & Peal Harbor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
The point is this, in AE Japan could take every base south of Japan, yet the allies can still sail to Australia and India without sailing anywhere near a Japanese base! If that isn't an advantage(cheating, gamey, etc, etc) to the allies what is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

The point is this, in AE Japan could take every base south of Japan, yet the allies can still sail to Australia and India without sailing anywhere near a Japanese base! If that isn't an advantage(cheating, gamey, etc, etc) to the allies what is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Man, what's the fuss about? First time I hear about a WITPer complaining about having too much... stuff?!

You had a bad day or what? Everyone thinks this makes the game richer, as an allied player you just have the same units, but this time at least you can deal with them sending them across the map without having to worry about a Japanese interception, send your assets where you need them... You don't need to involve yourself more than you'd do without them, and still you have access to dozens of new possibilities... Is that because they're nothing left to complain about that I see to see such pain ni the a** threads all over there or what?

The focus of the game should be on planing and conducting combat operations in the Pacific without having to worry about stuff in the Atlantic or anywhere else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around?

This is a good question, I would say no for two reasons.

1. There were no bases/refueling stops in south Africa on the way to India/Australia, North Africa may have to have been taken first so southern bases could be securely built there to protect the shipping lanes. The US lost alot of shipping off the east coast of the US, the Atlantic was not a very save place for shipping in 1942.

2. US policy was suppose to be Europe first, yet by early 1943 we had more man/ships in the pacific than we had in Europe, our allies didn't like it, and I not sure we would have gotten away with it if we had to ship everything through the Atlantic. Even congress and senate where not fully aware of the build up in the pacific vs. Europe. There was still a real fear back then, Japan could invade the west coast of the US, which would have kept what was left of the pacific fleet on the west coast & Peal Harbor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
If I understand what I have read correctly, Allied units staging from the off map places will be visible to the Allied player, (but I don't think you use the "snail paths" ala RHS?

quote:

If this is correct, will putting a cursor over a convoy tell me how many days till it re-enters the map, or will I need to keep books?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
If I understand what I have read correctly, Allied units staging from the off map places will be visible to the Allied player, (but I don't think you use the "snail paths" ala RHS?

No snail paths There are "snail paths" drawn on the map edges, but they are for illustration only, to show which off-map areas and/or map edges connect to which.

quote:

If this is correct, will putting a cursor over a convoy tell me how many days till it re-enters the map, or will I need to keep books?

Now that is a good idea! I have added it to the feature request list. You don't need to keep books as the TF display gives the number of days before arrival, but having it in the mouseover would be a lot more convenient, I agree.

Andrew